Any right of set-off or counter-claim growing out of' that transaction existing in favor of the adversary party when he receives notice of the assignment can be made against the assignee.1 Thus where selling agents had made advances to their vendor in excess of the amount realized by them from the sales after deducting their expenses and compensation, and assign such excess, the vendor may set up the fact that the agents are indebted to him for failure to sell at the highest market price.2 So the assignee of a non-negotiable note given for sheep is liable to counter-claim for breach of warranty.3 There is, however, a divergence of authority on the question whether the adversary party must show affirmatively that the amount expended by him exceeds the contract price to defeat the right of the assignee, some authorities holding that it is for such adversary party to show that there is nothing due under the contract;4 others holding that it is for the assignee to show in case of breach by the assignor that there is anything due under the contract.5 If A has assigned to C a judgment which A has against B, B can not set off, as against such judgment, a judgment against A, which B has purchased after A has made such assignment.6 Under statutes allowing assignment and permitting set-off existing at the time of the assignment, a set-off arising after assignment and before notice can not be made.7 Under some statutes a set-off may be made if it is acquired at any time before action by the assignee.8 If, by statute, set-off due at the time of the transfer can be made against the assignee's claim when mature, a claim mature at the time of the assignment can not be set off against an assignee who takes before performance.9 If the debtor is induced to enter into a contract by fraud, and he elects to affirm the contract and to bring an action for the fraud, it is said that if the assignment passes the legal title, he can not set off such claim for fraud as against a bona fide assignee.13

District of Columbia. Barber v. Johnson, 5 D. C. App. 305.

Georgia. Fulton National Bank v. Fulton County, 144 Ga. 691, 87 S. E. 1023.

Iowa. Hipwell v. National Surety Co., 130 la. 656, 105 N. W. 318.

Kansas. Sargent v. Kansas Midland Ry., 48 Kan. 672. 29 Pac. 1063.

New York. Chambers v. Lancaster, 160 N. Y. 342, 54 N. E. 707.

Pennsylvania. Hazelton Mercantile Co. v. Improvement Co., 143 Pa. St. 573. 22 Atl. 906; Paul v. City of Vancouver. 89 Wash. 331. 154 Pac. 453.

West Virginia. Whan v. Hope Natural Gas Co.. 81 W. Va. 338. 94 S. E. 365.

7 Jefferson County Savings Bank v. Carland (Ala.). 77 So. 704; Green v. Consolidated Wagon & Machine Co., 30 Ida. 359. 164 Pac. 1016; Steltzer v. Chicago. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 156 la: 1. L. R. A. 1915E, 1017, 134 N W. 573

8 Farrell v. Gold Flint Min. Co., 32

Mont. 416, 80 Pac. 1027; Columbia Realty Investment Co. v. Alameda Land Co., 87 Or. 277, 168 Pac. 64, 440.

9Eamshaw v. Whittemore, 194 Mass. 187, 80 N. E. 520.

10Fisken v. Iron Works, 86 Mich. 199, 49 N. W. 133 fre-hearing denied, 87 Mich. 591, 49 N. W. 8731; Jenks v. Wells, 90 Mich. 515, 51 N. W. 636; Union Pacific Rv. v. Bank, 42 Neb. 469. 60 N. W. 886; Beardsley v. Cook, 143 N. Y. 143, 38 N. E. 109; People v. Bank, 159 N. Y. 382, 54 N. E. 35; Greene v. Duncan, 37 S. Car. 239, 15 S. E. 956.

11Drako v. Cloonan, 99 Mich. 121, 41 Am. St. Rep. 586, 57 N. W. 1098.

1 United States. Brashear v. West, 32 V. S. (7 Pet.), 608, 8 L. ed. 802; Wagner v. Central Banking & Security Co.. 249 Fed. 145.

California. Jennings v. Bank. 79 Cal. 323. 12 Am. St. Rep. 145, 5 L. R. A. 233, 21 Pac. 852.

Delaware. Burton v. Willin, 6 Houst. (Del.) 552, 22 Am. St. Rep. 363.

Idaho. Northwestern, etc., Bank v. Rauch, 8 Ida. 50, 66 Pac. 807.

Illinois. McCarthy v. Crawford, 238 111. 38, 128 Am. St. Rep. 95, 29 L. R. A. (N.S.) 252, 86 N. E. 750.

Iowa. Benson v. Haywood, 86 la. 107, 23 L. R. A. 335, 53 N. W. 85; Cress v. Ivens, 163 Ia. 659, 145 N. W. 325; Rice v. Friend Bros. Co., 179 Ia. 355. 161 N. W. 310 [reversing judgment on rehearing, 146 N. W. 748].

Massachusetts. Homer v. Shaw, 212 Mass. 113, 98 N. E. 697.

Michigan. Benson v. Bauden, 149 Mich. 584, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 721, 113 N. W. 20.

Minnesota. Quigley v. Welter, 95 Minn. 383, 104 N. W. 236.

Nebraska. First National Bank v. Bank, 34 Neb. 71. 33 Am. St. Rep. 1618, 15 L. R. A. 386, 51 N. W. 305.

Ohio. King v. Armstrong, 50 O. S. 222, 34 N. E. 163.

Tennessee. Nugent v. Allen, 95 Tenn. 97, 32 S. W. 9.

2 Mackenzie v. Hodgkin, 126 Cal. 591, 77 Am. St. Rep. 209, 59 Pac. 36.

3 National Bank v. Feeney, 12 S. D. 156, 76 Am. St. Rep. 594, 80 N. W. 186.

4Layton v. Davidson, 144 Pa. St 145, 22 Atl. 909.

5 Beardsley v. Cook, 143 N. Y. 143, 38 N. E. 109.

6 Alexander v. Clark son, 100 Kan. 294, L. R. A. 1917F, 1006, 164 Pac. 294.

7 Stadler v. Bank, 22 Mont. 190, 74 Am. St. Rep. 582, 59 Pac. 111.

8 Wing v. Page, 62 la. 87, 11 N. W. 639, 17 N. W. 181.

9 Bradley v. Smith, 98 Mich. 449, 39 Am. St. Rep. 565, 23 L. R. A. 305, 57 N. W. 576.